The Gospel of Barnabas: Why Muslims Shouldnt Use It

In discussing the Gospel of Barnabas (GOB), there are so many arguments from both sides
as to the validity of the Gospel. Some Muslim sites claim that it is more accurate than
the KJV and the NIV. They claim that Irenaeus quoted from it. They state that it has been
found to exist on sixth century documents. They claim that it was the "original"
Gospel. Many of these claims are based on assumptions. As we shall see, many of these
assumptions, when exposed, should reveal the flaws in the GOB.

Assumption One:
It Could Not Have Been Written by a Muslim Because it Contradicts the Quran

This is an argument used by many Muslim sites to justify their use of the GOB.
"Why would a Muslim write a book that contradicts the Quran?" they ask.
They argue that no Muslim would write a false Gospel that contradicts the Quran at points.
This, however, assumes that a doctrinally learned writer would have had to compose the
GOB. The more logical hypothesis is that a Muslim who was ignorant of the faith wrote
the book (who would not know that the Messiah and the Christ are the same thing, for
example, or who would not know the Muslim teaching about seven heavens). The real reason
that Christians object is twofold. First, it demonstrates that Muslims who use the GOB are
more interested in bashing Christianity than doing real Islamic apologetics. (Refuting
Christianity is not the same thing as proving Islam.) It also shows a sorry desperation to
put Muhammad into the Bible. Second, and more important, is that it shows that if the GOB
is correct, then even the Quran is false! Thus, using the GOB is much like using atheist
material to bash Christianity; within a few pages of the same book, Islam will probably be
trashed too!

Assumption Two:
The Gospel is More Reliable than the KJV or NIV

This is a claim made on many sites. However, such a claim can be easily debunked.
First, there are thousands of manuscripts verifying the KJV and NIV. (One can even look
at the Jewish Publication Society Old Testament to see remarkable similarities between
the Christian KJV and this Jewish Bible.) No such manuscript attestation is possible for
the GOB.

Unfortunately, this claim shows the outright hypocrisy of Muslims! Muslims often claim
that the four Biblical Gospels have been "corrupted" because there are no Hebrew
or Aramaic texts, which are supposedly the "original languages". This is totally
bogus. We have the Peshitta (a Syriac version of the New Testament) with which we can
check the Greek texts. Second, there is no evidence that Greek is not the original New
Testament language, despite what Muslims say. Even so, many polemicists would have
you believe that the New Testament has come to us in English via this route (and, by
definition, these translations are corrupt):

Aramaic (Syriac) or Hebrew (no proof for these languages) à
Greek à English

Why do I say that this claim shows that the Muslims who back the GOB are hypocritical
is because we have NO Greek or Aramaic/Hebrew texts to confirm the GOB. The way that
the supposed "gospel" got to us is through MORE STEPS THAN THE KJV OR NIV:

This demonstrates that, according to Muslim logic, the GOB is inherently MORE CORRUPT
than the NIV or KJV. The KJV and NIV were translated straight from the original language;
the GOB is at least three times removed from the original Hebrew or Aramaic. The hypocrisy
is incredible! The KJV (translated straight from the Greek) is corrupt, yet the GOB
(translated from Italian, a language that didnt even exist in the
first century) is the "gospel truth"! Clearly, if the NIV is corrupt, then the
GOB is most definitely corrupt. The KJV and NIV are based on hundreds of manuscripts that
are thousands of years old; the GOB is based on a singular 15th century
manuscript!

Assumption Three:
The Pre-Islam Gospel is the Same as the 15th Century Gospel

This assumption is very important. Why? First, there is no manuscript evidence to support
the claim that they are the same. Between the 6th century and the 15th,
we hear nothing of the GOB. This leaves open an eight hundred year period for someone
to make a forgery. Thus, there is ample reason to believe that they are not the same (especially
keeping in mind the many anachronisms found in the GOB).

Assumption Four:
Pre-Islam Christians Would Have Had a Reason to Conceal the Gospel

Why, if, according to the Quran, the early Christians were faithful "Muslims,"
would there be any reason to conceal the GOB? If it were truly believed by the early Church
that it was written by the apostle Barnabas, why would the Church want to destroy it?
If it were so canonical, why would the Church want to destroy a work that Ante-Nicene
Fathers, such as Irenaeus, quoted from? If it was so believed, then why do we have evidence
that people were already worshipping Jesus as God in the second and third centuries, over
a hundred years BEFORE the 325 council of Nicaea? Clearly, if it did exist, no one took it
seriously. After all, it does say that Jesus wasnt the Messiah! The fact that it was
"banned" in the first place (BEFORE the Advent of Muhammad) is proof in
itself (if the gospel we have now is the same as the pre-Islam gospel) that no one really
believed in it.

Assumption Five: All "Apocryphal" Books were Heretical

Another assumption is that the reason that many books (such as the GOB) were not
included in the final canon is because they were heretical. However, this, is totally false.
There are many books that were not accepted in the New Testament canon. Most of
these were rejected not because they did not line up with Christian teaching, but because
they were known to be MYTHS:

The following accounts we found in the book of Joseph the high-priest, called, by some
Caiphas: He relates, that Jesus spake even when he was in the cradle, and said to his
mother: Mary, I am Jesus the Son of God, that word which thou
didst bring forth according to the declaration of the angel Gabriel to thee, and my father
has sent me for the salvation of the world [1 Infancy 1:1].

Here we see a story in which Jesus called Himself the Son of God while still in the
cradle. Why would the Church Fathers not have wanted to put this book into their New
Testament? Perhaps it was because they knew it was legend.

Thomas, an Israelite judged it necessary to make known to our brethren among the
Gentiles, the actions and miracles of Christ in his childhood, which
our Lord and God Jesus Christ wrought after his birth in Bethlehem in our country,
at which I myself was astonished; the beginning of which was as followeth [2 Infancy 1:1].

Here we see that, in an "apocryphal" book, Jesus is explicitly called
"our Lord and God." This would have settled all disputes in the Arian
controversy. However, this book was rejected, not because it didnt jive with current
teaching, but because it was known to be a forgery and myth.

O Lord, Jesus and Father, who art God, also the resurrection and life
of the dead, give us leave to declare thy mysteries, which we saw after death,
belonging to thy cross; for we are sworn by thy name [Nicodemus 13:1].

This is as much as God allowed us to relate to you; give ye therefore praise and honour
to him, and repent, and he will have mercy upon you. Peace be to you
from the Lord God Jesus Christ, and the Saviour of us all. Amen, Amen, Amen
[Nicodemus 21:6].

Here we see Jesus, along with the Father, called God. Moreover, we see that Jesus was
crucified and is the one through whom we gain everlasting life. Again, there would have
been no doctrinal reason to conceal such a book. The reason it did not make it into the
New Testament is because it was not considered an inspired work.

There is one physician, both fleshy and spiritual; made and not made; God incarnate;
true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible, then impassible; even
Jesus Christ our Lord [Ignatiuss Epistle to Ephesians 2:7].

For our God Jesus Christ was according to the dispensation of God conceived
in the womb of Mary, of the seed of David, by the Holy Ghost; he was born and baptized,
that through his passion he might purify water, to the washing away of sin [Ephesians 4:9].

There is one Lord Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is better. Wherefore
come ye all together as unto one temple of God; as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ; who
proceeded from one Father, and exists in one, and is returned to one [Magnesians 2:11].

Here we see Jesus called God incarnate and flat-out called God. The excerpt from
Magnesians also says that Jesus "proceeds from the Father" and "exists as
one" with Him. However, these books were not considered canonical or inspired. If the
sole reason books were rejected is because they did not match or conform to the "corrupt
Trinitarian doctrine" of the fourth century, then why didnt any of these
clearly pro-Trinity works make it into the canon?

The fact of the matter is, books were not rejected merely because they did not
"fit" the theology of the day. They were accepted or rejected depending on their
inspiration. If the GOB that supposedly existed in the 6th century is the same
one we have today, it was rejected because it was not inspired, just like all the above
pro-Trinity books. Moreover, as we can see, not all the apocryphal books were destroyed;
we have these works to this day. (In fact, there are several lost letters that probably would
have been considered canonical if we still had them today.) The fact is, if the original GOB
is the same as the one we have today, it was probably rejected because it was known to be
legend or myth.

Assumption Six: The GOB Was Written by an Apostle Who Knew Jesus

It is true that Barnabas knew Jesus; it is NOT true, that He was ever an "apostle"
in the meaningful sense of being a member of the Twelve. First, we can see from Matthew (10:2-4),
that the apostles were as follows:

Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon,
who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother;
James the son of Zebedee, and John his
brother; Philip, and Bartholomew;
Thomas, and Matthew the publican;
James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus,
whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and
Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

In Luke (6:13-16), we read something similar:

And when it was day, he called to him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom
also he named apostles; Simon, (whom he also named Peter,)
and Andrew his brother, James
and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and
Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and
Simon called Zelotes, And Judas the
brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was
the traitor." After Jesus ascension, a new apostle was needed.

Luke (in Acts) tells us how the new apostle was chosen:

And in those days Peter stood up in the middle of the disciples, and said, (the number
of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) Men and brothers, this scripture must
needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spoke before
concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us,
and had obtained part of this ministry. Now this man purchased a field with the reward of
iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the middle, and all his bowels gushed
out. And it was known to all the dwellers at Jerusalem; so as that field is called in
their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. For it is written in
the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his
position as bishop let another take. Why of these men which have companied with us all the
time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, to
that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us
of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed
Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, You, Lord, which know the hearts of all
men, show whether of these two you have chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and
apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell on Matthias; and he
was numbered with the eleven apostles [Acts 1:15-26].

Here we see that Barnabas was not even chosen as a replacement for Judas! He was never
one of the Twelve! Moreover, Levi (the tax collector, Matthew) and John both knew Jesus
personally, and Ireneaus believed them to be authors of the Gospels attributed to them
(See Lee Strobels The Case for Christ, page 29). If Muslims consider the GOB
credible because Irenaeus supposedly quoted from it, they should believe that his claim
that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels bearing their names for the same
reason. (It was the Epistle of Barnabas that he used, but well get to that later.)
Because Barnabas was never an apostle of Jesus, we should not consider his report (even
if the GOB was truly written by him) more credible than Matthew or Johns record of
events. What about Luke or Marks? Well discuss them shortly.

Assumption Seven: The Other Writers Would Have Had to Copy Barnabas

This assumes two things. First, it assumes that Barnabas was a "true"
apostle. This was not the case. Matthew and John knew Jesus personally and would not have
had to copy him (especially not John, who was part of Jesus inner circle with James
and Peter). Moreover, John Mark, who was related to Barnabas, most likely would have
copied from Peter, who was part of Jesus inner circle of apostles, and not Barnabas,
who was never even a member of the Twelve. Luke, who got around to just about everybody,
also could have copied Mark but obtained other information. Simply put, there is no reason
to believe that the four Gospel writers would have had to copy from Barnabas.

Second, this assumption assumes that there was an original Gospel. According to
Muslims, it was written by Barnabas. Is this belief sound? No. First, it contradicts the notion
that Jesus received a literal book from heaven. If they had a book already from Jesus,
why would the other writers have had to copy Barnabas? Second, many read too much into
the "titles" "the Gospel According to ..." All "gospel"
means is "good news." Thus the "Gospel According to John" is
"the good news according to John," or Johns account of the good news.
There is no evidence that such a primordial, original Gospel (Q) ever existed in the Islamic
book form (a literal book from heaven). In fact, there is biblical evidence against this notion,
found in a passage that Muslims love to use:

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter,
that he may abide with you for ever; [John 14:16]

Who is this Comforter? Ask just about any Islamic apologist and youll get
the answer Muhammad. Lets see what else the Comforter will do:

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name,
he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever
I have said to you [John 14:26].

This verse, by itself, refutes the Muslim claim that there existed a book called the
Gospel that Jesus gave His apostles. Why would Jesus need to send someone to teach
the apostles all things if He left them a book with all His teachings in it? And why would
they need to copy from this book if the Comforter was going to bring all things to their
remembrance? The answer is, because there was no "book." The Holy Spirit
(the Comforter) came to the apostles, and it was by the power of Him that they were able
to preach and write the Gospels (at least John and Matthew; Luke could have copied from
Mark, who learned from Peter). If the apostles had a "Gospel" in their hands,
the Comforter would be useless; they would already have possessed all of Jesus
teachings and no one would need to bring anything to their remembrance. The fact of
the matter is that no "original" Gospel (at least not in the Islamic sense) ever
existed. The Comforter was sent to the apostles to remind them of Jesus and His teachings
so that they could preach. Further, we see that this verse also refutes the claim that
Muhammad was the Comforter:

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send
in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance,
whatever I have said to you [John 14:26].

This verse says that the Comforter was to come in the name of JESUS. In whose name did
Muhammad come? The Quran tells us over a hundred times:

In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.

These words appear at the beginning of every Sura except the ninth, and clearly
demonstrate that Muhammad did NOT come in the name of Jesus. Thus, he was not the subject
of the "Comforter" prophecy. The only way that Muhammad can be said to have
come in the name of Jesus is if Jesus (Isa) is Allah. However, this concept is contradicted by
the Quran itself:

They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah,
son of Mary. Say: Who then can do aught against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the
Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? Allah's is the Sovereignty of
the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He createth what He will. And
Allah is Able to do all things [Sura 5.17].

They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary.
The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.
Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode
is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers [Sura 5.72].

Thus, the Quran clearly states that Allah is NOT Jesus, and therefore, Muhammad, who
did not come in the name of Jesus, could not have been the Comforter. Muhammad, therefore,
is proved to be a false prophet (no evidence of his advent in the Gospels), and if
Muhammad was a false prophet, what does that mean about the Quran and Islam?

Assumption Eight:
The Testimony of the GOB is more Reliable than the Testimony of the Apostles

This is another important factor. Why do the Muslims who support the GOB think that
it is the most accurate? Does the GOB agree with the teachings of Peter, who most certainly
knew Jesus better than Barnabas? If not, then we can be certain that the GOB is false.
What do the Epistles of Peter say?

In the GOB, we see this:

But Jesus lifted them up, comforting them, and saying: "Do not be afraid, I am
your master." And he reproved many who believed that he had died and risen again,
saying: "Do you hold me and God for liars? I said to you that God has granted to me
to live almost to the end of the world. Truly I say to you, I did not die; it was Judas
the traitor [GOB Chapter 221].

Peter, who knew Jesus far better than Barnabas, said this:

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the
Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:
Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively
hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, [1 Peter 1:2]

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible
things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by
tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ,
as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before
the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do
believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave
him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. Seeing ye have purified your souls in
obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye
love one another with a pure heart fervently: [1 Peter 1:18-22]

For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered
for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin,
neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he
suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree,
that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were
healed. For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and
Bishop of your souls [1 Peter 2:21-25].

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for
the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the
flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the
spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God
waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight
souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now
save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good
conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and
authorities and powers being made subject unto him [1 Peter 3:18-22].

Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh,
arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath
ceased from sin; [1 Peter 4:1]

Should we believe the Gospel of Barnabas, for which we only have a 14th or
15th century manuscript, or should we believe the words of Peter, who knew
Jesus personally?

The GOB says:

Having thus spoken, Jesus said: You are just, O Lord our God, because to you only
belongs honour and glory without end. [GOB Chapter 220]

The Apostle Peter, however, says

For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting
kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ [2 Peter 1:11].

But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen [2 Peter 3:18].

Peter says that we are to honor Jesus and even calls Him king. That means that either
Jesus is God (which refutes the GOB), or someone besides God deserves glory forever
(which would refute the GOB). Are we to believe one of Jesus three best friends, or
a Gospel written by someone who didnt even know that Messiah and Christ mean
the same thing? (In the opening of the GOB He is called the Christ, but in chapter 42 He says
that He is not the Messiah!)

The GOB says:

Dearly beloved the great and wonderful God hath during these past days visited us by
his prophet Jesus Christ in great mercy of teaching and miracles, by reason whereof many,
being deceived of Satan, under presence of piety, are preaching
most impious doctrine, calling Jesus son of God, repudiating
the circumcision ordained of God for ever, and permitting every unclean meat: among whom
also Paul hath been deceived [The Opening of the GOB]

But Peter says:

And account thatthe longsuffering of our Lord is
salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to
the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his
epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to
be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as
they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction [2 Peter 3:15-16].

The Apostle Peter called Pauls words scripture. Should we believe
Peter, who knew Jesus personally, or the author of the GOB, who doesnt even know
the geography of the Holy Land (Chapter 21)?

Since Peter calls Pauls words scriptures, we should see what he says. What did
Paul say?

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness;
but unto us which are saved it is the power of God [1 Corinthians 1:18].

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are
justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace [Galatians 5:4].

But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made
nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath
broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having
abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in
ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
[Ephesians 2:13-15]

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us
that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and
godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of
the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; [Titus 2:11-13]

If this is what Paul teaches, and Peter, who knew Jesus personally, called Pauls
letters scripture, I think I better believe what Paul said!

There are many instances in which the GOB contradicts John, who knew Jesus personally
as well. (The contradictions begin at John 1:1!) However, aside from these contradictions,
there are contradictions which irreconcilably refute the GOB. Where are these contradictions?
In the EPISTLE of Barnabas. There are many contradictions in the GOB, so I think that if they
can believe that the GOB was written by Barnabas, they should at least look at the Epistle
ascribed to him (even though it too is a bit too late to be his writing). Many Muslims argue
that Barnabass view differed from that of Paul to a great extent and that this is the
reason the GOB is so different from other Christian writings. So, to see whether there is
support for this claim, we should examine Barnabass Epistle. What does it say?

For God has manifested to us by all the prophets, that he has no occasion for our
sacrifices, or burnt offerings, or oblations: saying thus; To what purpose is the
multitude of your sacrifices unto me, saith the Lord. I am full of the burnt-offerings of
rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of
he-goats. When ye come to appear before me; who hath required this at your hands? Ye shall
no more tread my courts. Bring no more vain oblations, incense is an abomination unto me;
your new moons and sabbaths; the calling of assemblies I cannot away with, it is iniquity,
even the solemn meeting; your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth.
These things therefore hath God abolished, that the new law of our Lord
Jesus Christ, which is without the yoke of any such necessity, might have the
spiritual offering of men themselves [Epistle of Barnabas 2:4-8].

This sounds to me like what Paul was preaching about the abolition of the law.

Again; What says Moses to Jesus [Joshua] the Son of Nun, when he gave that name
unto him, as being a prophet that all the people might hear him alone, because
the Father did manifest all things concerning his son Jesus, in
Jesus the Son of Nun; and gave him that name when he sent him to spy out the land of
Canaan; he said: Take a book in thine hands, and write what the Lord saith: Forasmuch as
Jesus the Son of God shall in the last days cut off by the roots all the house of Amalek.
See here again Jesus, not the son of man, but the Son of God, made
manifest in a type and in the flesh [11:12].

We see here that Epistle of Barnabas taught that Jesus was both the Son of God and made
manifest in the flesh (implying His Godhood). Both of these concepts are contradictory to
the testimony of the Gospel of Barnabas. Clearly, if Muslims can believe that the GOB is
credible, for which we only have an Italian manuscript from the 14th or 15th
century, then they should be able to believe that the Epistle of Barnabas (written between
70 AD and 150 AD) was also a good representation of early Christian belief. This in itself
disproves the validity of the GOB.

Reasons NOT to Use the Gospel of Barnabas

Thus far I have shown the many assumptions made by GOB-ist Muslims and demonstrated
the error of these assumptions. There are, however, a few reasons that a Muslim should not
use the GOB aside from the flaws of these assumptions. First, as I have shown, it is a
twice-removed translation. If the KJV and NIV are corrupt purely by virtue of being
translated ONCE (from Greek into English) or even TWICE (from Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek
to English), then the GOB should be even more corrupt; it has supposedly gone from
Aramaic/Hebrew to Spanish to Italian to English. It is only fair that they should hold the
GOB to the same standard as the normal Bibles, isnt it? Second, the GOB contradicts
the Quran. If the GOB is accurate enough to refute the Bible, then it is accurate enough
to refute the Quran in its claims that Muhammad was the Messiah (Jesus is the only Messiah
in the Quran) or about the number of heavens. Third, and most importantly, it undermines
an important claim found in the Quran:

And believe in that which I reveal, confirming that which ye
possess already (of the Scripture), and be not first to disbelieve therein, and
part not with My revelations for a trifling price, and keep your duty unto Me [Sura 2.41].

And when there cometh unto them a scripture from Allah, confirming
that in their possession - though before that they were asking for a signal triumph
over those who disbelieved - and when there cometh unto them that which they know (to be
the truth) they disbelieve therein. The curse of Allah is on disbelievers [2.89].

And when it is said unto them: Believe in that which Allah hath revealed, they say: We
believe in that which was revealed unto us. And they disbelieve in that which cometh after
it, though it is the truth confirming that which they possess.
Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Why then slew ye the prophets of Allah aforetime, if ye are
(indeed) believers? [2.91]

And when there cometh unto them a messenger from Allah, confirming
that which they possess, a party of those who have received the Scripture fling the
Scripture of Allah behind their backs as if they knew not, [2.101]

When Allah made (His) covenant with the prophets, (He said): Behold that which I have
given you of the Scripture and knowledge. And afterward there will
come unto you a messenger, confirming that which ye possess. Ye shall believe in
him and ye shall help him. He said: Do ye agree, and will ye take up My burden (which I
lay upon you) in this (matter)? They answered: We agree. He said: Then bear ye witness.
I will be a witness with you [3.81].

Each Sura above demonstrates that the Quran claims to confirm the Bible that the
Christians had in their possession at the time of Muhammad. (Notice all the present
tense: that which they possess, that in their possession, NOT that which they possessed or
that which WAS in their possession.) This demonstrates two things. First, it demonstrates
that the author of the Quran did not consider the Torah and Gospel corrupt; if he did, why
would he claim that it CONFIRMS that which the people HAD AT THE TIME? (Did it confirm
the corruption and the "contradictions"?) Second, and more importantly, it
demonstrates that the author considered it possible to prove the validity of Islam and the
Quran using that which was in the peoples possession. We can be certain that the GOB
was not in the peoples possession; if it had been, it surely would have received a
lot of attention.

What are we to make of this then? Well, if Muslims must use works that are NOT part of
what the people of Muhammads day possessed, that clearly goes to show that the
Gospels are lacking in prophecies of Muhammad. If not, then why bother with the GOB? The
sad truth is that by using the GOB, Muslims are proving that Muhammad did NOT confirm
that which the Christians of his day possessed, and that for that reason it is necessary to
find another gospel that the Quran does confirm. Thus, by using the GOB, the Muslim is
giving the Christian even more proof of the non-existence of biblical prophecies
that point to Muhammad. This leads to a serious question: if the Quran was wrong about
there being prophecies of Muhammad in the Bible, could it also be wrong about the
crucifixion or the Trinity? If the Quran is false about something like confirming previous
scriptures, can we trust the words therein to save our souls? Peter warned about the
coming of things like the GOB:

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false
teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies,
even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift
destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom
the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with
feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth
not, and their damnation slumbereth not. [2 Peter 2:1-3]

Could it be that Peters words have been fulfilled? Has there been a prophet
who brought in "damnable heresies," denied that the Lord has bought us, led many
astray, and used people for their money? If youre a Muslim, you need to ask yourself:
who Peter was talking about? I pray that you would be freed from the "heresy"
of Muhammad and come to know the Lord Jesus Christ!